Living. The living God is one of the more striking phrases in the bible to me. I always notice it when reading, because the implications are so staggering and awesome. A God who is alive--Who has the truest form of, the most intense ‘version’ of, the only uncompromised quality of, and the uniquely impossibly-irrepressible instance of what we call ‘life’. 

Loving. It is a commonplace to quote I John 4:8 “God is love”, but I often wonder if ‘traditional Christians’ know how odd this really is, in the history of religions. As I read more and more in the religious texts of Islam, later Judaism, and extremist groups in Christianity, I am always surprised again when I return to reading the Bible. The consistent emphasis on God’s love (and not just His ‘mercy’ and ‘authority’ and even ‘salvation’) and the consequent command to love ‘one another’ is without parallel outside that text.

Laughing and Lamenting. The ‘theory’ behind this is easy: we, who are commanded to be Christ-like and God-like, are instructed to ‘weep with those who weep, and rejoice with those who rejoice’. And for scriptural evidence, we know God authored the various Lament passages in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Lamentations, various lamentations over the judgments on the various neighbors of Israel, and even over the discipline inflicted on Israel). ‘Grief’ is ascribed to His Spirit in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. The only explicit ‘laughter’ verses, however, are the wrong kind of laughter—laughter in derision at the arrogance of the enemies of God (e.g. Ps 2). But there are many ‘rejoicing’ passages—which at least would have ‘vigorous smiles’ (smile): Zeph 3.17b is my favorite (He will rejoice over you with shouts of joy), and the rejoicing in Heaven over the recovered sheep (Luke 15.7par) would not have excluded God!

One of the puzzles of the NT to me is the in-our-face difference in tone between two of the Johannine works: Revelation and 1 John. Assuming that the apostle John wrote both—the view I hold—the contrast has always puzzled me.

The reason for my befuddlement is simple. John started out as a ‘son of thunder’, wanting to call down fire in judgment on the Samaritans. His life was changed by the ministry of Jesus and the post-Pentecost ministry of the Holy Spirit—and he became the ‘apostle of love’. Just as Peter was mellowed into beautiful gentleness and patience by the Spirit (cf. the gospels versus Acts and 1 Peter), so John was transformed into the person of I John.

But when I turn to Revelation, I am overwhelmed by the violent, traumatic, and terrifying images and vocabulary. [Of course, that is how I am SUPPOSED to respond—the whole point of that imagery is to get me to take the inevitability of final judgment (however long the patience of God delays that), the criticality of ethics (even for the beloved lovers of God), the stubbornness of my human nature, and the derivative and insubstantial nature of this age/world seriously. I have all but given up trying to mine the cognitive content from most of those images, and have rather submitted myself to their intense metaphorical and symbolic power.]

Now we know that Revelation is a virtual pastiche of OT prophetic and apocalyptic passages, so it is not actually ‘odd’ in the biblical register. It just seems a little ‘odd’ to me, in the Johannine register (i.e. the Gospel of John, and epistles 1,2,3 John). There is so much about love in his gospel and his epistles, and almost nothing about the end-time judgments. Gone from the Gospel are the Woe-passages (mostly) and even the Olivet Discourse and/or Little Apocalypse are absent. John 3.16 is followed by John 3.18—to be sure—but the proportion of patience-to-judgment verses seems different to me.

And maybe that’s the issue—I realized. In the OT literary prophets, the judgment passages are mixed in with patience/nurturing passages, with the judgment/warning passages being slightly larger in volume than the patience/nurturing/calling passages. One can see this in most of the OT writing prophets, with several, though, being mostly judgment (e.g Hab).

So, if I were to take Hosea or Isaiah, for examples, and divide each into two books (one of judgment/warning passages and one of calling/comforting/patience/nurturing passages), I might get the same pattern I see in the Johannine NT writings.

At a rather imprecise level, I see that Revelation has about 18ish chapters of judgment and a couple of chapters of ‘regular’ content. The Gospel of John has the opposite mix—20ish chapters of patience/nurturing/instruction and maybe enough judgment-type passages to fill out two or three chapters. First John has 5 chapters of ‘extreme love’ (should we count this as 8-10, since the ‘density’ of love passages is so high?), and 2^nd and 3^rd John are ‘neutral’.

This rough ‘calculation’ would suggest that John is not radically different than the OT prophetic materials—containing a mix—but also that the balance has been ‘tipped’ to ‘more love than judgment’. [Although, we might should weight the terrifying imagery in Revelation higher than normal—like we did the love passages in 1 John—but we should note that those images are not original with John. One has only to compare some of his imagery with Joel, with Habakkuk, with Daniel, and with Ezekiel to see that our ‘extra’ weighting might be unwarranted.]

So I arrive at the conclusion that the apparent disparity between the Apocalypse of John and the Gospel/Epistles of John is only apparent—except that John might be more ‘love bearing’ than would be expected. And this does confirm the power of the transforming love of Christ in his life…

Would that I and all of us would be more and more transformed by the ministry of the Risen Lord, operating through the indwelling Spirit of the Living and Loving God.

This has got to be one of the most amazing (and to me—staggering) phrases in the Bible.

The thread of ‘pleasing God’ shows up throughout the scripture. The most memorable to me is Paul’s injunction to ‘learn what pleases God’ in Eph 5.10.

There are two ‘concepts’ that combine to create this staggering impression on me: the ‘size’ of God, and the personal—almost intimate—nature of something ‘pleasing’.

One of the more repulsive results of sin in my life is my over-reaction to it. I tend to move in extremes (since I am generally ignorant of where the ‘middle’ is—sigh), and so when I commit some sin I particularly despise (or fail to do something I truly treasure), I often over-react (leading to dead legalism) in what I call ‘emotional whiplash’. I get so disgusted with myself and angry about it, that I ‘over-legislate’ in the opposite extreme. I prohibit that which is good, or I allow that which can become dangerous.

If I over-eat (in some kind of self-centered lust), I will swing to the other extreme and create a harsh regimen that reduces my ability to “get my life out the door” and which actually is of no value for restraint (cf Paul in Col 2.23: “harsh treatment of the body, …no value against fleshly indulgence”). If I drink too much, if I spend too much, if I sleep too much, if I work too much, if I withdraw too much… my reaction is predictable (sigh), and requires even MORE time to correct my over-reaction!

And so, when I should just start moving the pendulum back toward the center, I instead swing it all the way back to the opposite point of the arc, and it thus takes me twice as long to recover from failure than it should!

I know the proper procedure is much simpler: admit the failure to God, thank Him for the provision for forgiveness and for the ultimate removal of the underlying personal weakness, do a little ‘autopsy’ or ‘root cause analysis’ with a view to avoiding any precipitating factors NEXT time, and then get back into step with the Spirit, in the tasks of life/ministry/family/celebration. There is not supposed to be all this self-loathing and whining and self-serving guilt and despair and wallowing in self-pity that I seem to fall prey to sometimes. It’s supposed to be genuine grief over grieving our Loving Lord, a genuine relief-appreciation-confidence that the Cross is more than adequate to stop the bloodloss, and a ‘quiet haste’ to get back into the process of walking, sharing, and experiencing life with the Living God.

Over the years, as God has thawed my heart and warmed my eyes, I seem to notice more personal nuances of NT vocabulary.

One such word that has gotten my attention recently is ‘lavished’ used in the NIV at Eph 1.8 and 1 John 3.1 (but of two different Greek words):

The point about ‘lavish’ that impresses me at this point can be seen from the lexical entry for the Greek word Paul used: “be more than enough, be left over”.

God’s gifts and grace and gentleness and generosity are ‘above and beyond what is required’. He does not do ‘just enough to get by’, but abounds and super-abounds in His goodness to us. Some Hebrew Bible translations of the covenant proclamation of YHWH use the ‘lavish’ word to translate “but He lavishes His love on thousands of generations of those who honor Him”. He may mete out judgment with exactitude (for reasons of justice, fairness, and integrity), but when it comes to His joyous expressions of giving, sharing (e.g. we humans will share in the inheritance of His incredible Son?!!!), gifting, and blessing—He is ‘over the top’.

And “the point of my point” here is not really about the lavish gifts, but rather about the Giver. A lavish gift points to a lavish Giver, and the thought that God has/is such a lavish heart and lavish life leads me to worship, appreciation, and desire to get to know this One better and closer…

One of the topics that has engaged biblical students (among others) over the millennia is Abraham’s response to God’s command to offer Isaac as a burnt offering on Mt Moriah. The incident is used in OT scripture as proof of Abraham’s submission/obedience to the Lord, and in Hebrews it is used to illustrate Abraham’s faith (instead of obedience) states that Abraham was expecting God to raise Isaac, even if he completed the sacrifice. [The promises given to Abraham required Isaac to be alive and produce offspring.]

But I have often wondered about what Abraham might have thought was the reason for the temporary-sacrifice of Isaac, given the expectation of resurrection. He knew Isaac could not actually stay dead (assuming that Abraham actually believed that God would make him go through with it—a questionable assumption, IMO).

It is conceivable that he saw the whole thing as just a test-of-loyalty (which we know it was—at least in one of its main aspects), but this could have been done via many other means other than death/resurrection.

The reason I mention this is that every time I read about the ‘explanations’ (by Herod and the populace) of Jesus’ miraculous powers, I think about Abraham’s understanding of resurrection and the promises made to him:

And King Herod heard of it, for His name had become well known; and people were saying, “John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is why these miraculous powers are at work in Him (Mk 6:14).

Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was happening; and he was greatly perplexed, because it was said by some that John had risen from the dead,  and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others, that one of the prophets of old had risen again. (Lk 9:7).

In other words, there was at least the perception of some people (at the time of Christ) that a resurrected person would have extra ‘powers’ or miraculous abilities, and with the ability to create an impact beyond what a ‘normal life’ might be expected to yield.

I cannot find any evidence to suggest that this perspective was held by Abraham (or anybody before David), but if it was then Abraham might have reasoned like this:

“God promised me that the whole world would be blessed through my offspring. Even if my kids are really, really awesome, it is a stretch to think they could have a global impact of this sort.  A normal human life can only have normal human impacts—even kings would only impact part of the known world. Maybe my son has to become ‘transcendently human’ in some way, like becoming eternal or divine-like or immortal. Maybe Isaac has to die in order to achieve super-human, above-mortality status—for the promises to be fulfilled. Maybe this is the only way for him to have the power to impact the entire world.”

Data on resurrection beliefs in the ANE is nonexistent, although some legends/stories in the surrounding cultures witness the belief that post-mortem ‘souls’ could manifest other-worldly capabilities [even if they were not resurrected in bodies].  Even the agricultural myths of ‘spring rising from the dead of winter’ (maybe?) might suggest that a resurrected Isaac would be more-than-mortal…?

Oddly enough, the speculative speech I put into Abraham’s mouth above is actually a legitimate argument. That is exactly how it was done—our Lord died and rose again to solve the sin problem for the whole world. And His post-resurrection body/capabilities  will be required at the end of time to finally banish the very presence of evil from the New Future.

My reconstruction is speculative, since the data is so sparse—but I bet Abraham had some ‘guess’ at why God would have chosen to use death and resurrection as the means to achieving His blessing to all peoples through Isaac.

[That being said, it should be noted that anytime I personally try to guess why God has me do a certain task, I am probably wrong… Although He frequently shares His reason and goals for something, there is a ‘statistical reason’ (smile) why His ways are often called ‘inscrutable’ (LOL)…]

One of the things I learned early (from scripture) was that we become like the people we ‘pay attention to’ [In an unguarded way, that is—we can associate with the ‘wicked’ as long as we maintain the internal perspective of ‘ethical distance’ . We can love them, honor aspects of their character/lives, but we still recognize their unsuitability as examples to emulate. This seems to eliminate or reduce the ‘influence’ impact.]

We hang out with good-hearted believers, we ‘move’ in that direction ourselves. We study the heart and character of Jesus, we ‘move’ in that direction in our hearts. We spend time with God in prayer, we ‘move’ in that direction in our priorities.

One special case of this is my view of my ‘future self’—characterized fully by righteousness, love, compassion, patience, integrity, celebration, moral strength, and focus on the truly good. To a certain extent, I can visualize how these would ‘look’ in my current daily life, although I am sensitive to the danger of focusing on ‘externals’ and to the danger of false ‘visualizations’ due to my lack of full maturity. But I have noticed that in contemplating this ‘future glenn’ (a pale expression of what I will be like after the Final Transformation!), I am ‘challenged’ [like the ‘challenge’ of considering the heroes in Hebrews 11-12] and I can see myself responding positively to that image—and I seem to do better.

I suppose that this works partially from the related ‘think on the noble, good, true things’ principle [Phil 4.8], and partially from the fact that the ‘better glenn’ is more like Jesus than the ‘existing glenn’ (sigh), meaning that I am contemplating the Jesus-heart in the future glenn.